Sorry, I don't have my מבוא שערים handy. Can you excerpt the relevant passage from your citation?

Did you learn the reference I provided, which explains the context of מלכות דא"ס (although you and YN can note what it says in פרק י"ז there ע"פ האריז"ל and then if you want, maybe say a צ"ע [which is IMHO not such a צ"ע in light of the ביאור in the פרק cited above]).

Sorry, I don't have my מבוא שערים handy. Can you excerpt the relevant passage from your citation?

Did you learn the reference I provided, which explains the context of מלכות דא"ס (although you and YN can note what it says in פרק י"ז there ע"פ האריז"ל and then if you want, maybe say a צ"ע [which is IMHO not such a צ"ע in light of the ביאור in the פרק cited above]).

I think it is discussed in a very good detail in the Reb Yoel Kaan's Encyclopedia, in the entry on Ohr Ein Soif (the sub-entry is called 'Ten Spheros in the OE"S').

I still don't understand how there can be spheros in something that is supposed to be absolutely poshut. In particular, I don't grasp the logic of Reb Kaan's analysis of how because the spheroes are undifferentiated and are cause of everything, they are ultimately united, and so they are "one" with each other (but then why are they called spheroes, and why are they in plural, not singluar?). I also don't understand Mittler Rebbe's argument of "obviously the ten spheros exist in Ohr Ein Soif, otherwise, where did they [the lower instances of ten spheros] come from?" (I am paraphrasing from Ch-s 10-11 in Mittler Rebbe's Shar HaYichud). What's the problem of saying that they were created ym"a from something completely singular?

i've been rather busy as of late. this entity, while being absolutely poshut, still has the quality of metzius, thus has the quality of osios at some level. when there are osios, there is the possibility of the existence, or should i say, formation of sefiros. the sefiros follow a pattern. thus the pattern is that of כי טבע הטוב להטיב which is something we have yet to understand, i.e. the sephiros are not inevitable, but only because it emanates from hashem, but hashem has created it in a way that it becomes inevitable.

yesh meayin is not a classical answer to everything, although the sephiros were created through yesh meayin, there is obviously a certain aspect that was not random, i.e. something of the ten sefiros (their division, their notion) which existed (if we may call it existenceמציאות, נמצא) beforehand. i hope that sheds some light on the issue.

of course, this does not touch upon the complex heiarchy of "malchus de"s" but rather a brief overview of what should be understood as basic before asking such questions.

I too have been quite busy lately. Nevertheless, I am very dissappointed with your post Hiskashrus, and have therefore taken a minute to respond. Aside for the fact that I am having trouble even making sense of it, your bit about the Osios is wrong (see Ginas Egoz, Shaar HaHavayah, brought down in Ayin-Beis, as I recall). Moreover, there are no sefiros in Atzmus Ohr Ein Sof. The Sefiros that are referred to in Ain Sof or in Ohr Ein Sof, do not refer to the Essence, as I mentioned to FlyingAxe (with mekoros to the Rashab IIRC) in an old post.

Rather, the answer that FlyingAxe must have already seen, but not paid attention to, is found in the beginning of the very chapter of Shaar HaYichud that he refers to. There it states:

yesh meayin is not a classical answer to everything, although the sephiros were created through yesh meayin, there is obviously a certain aspect that was not random, i.e. something of the ten sefiros (their division, their notion) which existed (if we may call it existenceמציאות, נמצא) beforehand. i hope that sheds some light on the issue.

יש מאין is an answer to everything, אבער מען דארף עס פארשטיין לפי ענינו. In the case of the Sefiros we say that מהתעבות האור נעשה הכלים, from the (spiritual) thickening of the Or itself are the Keilim made. Absolute Yesh Meayin is physical matter appearing from the spiritual, everything before is לפי ערך, for the newly created level sees the previous as being Ayin. This is a very simplistic explanation, there are many more details and in some places this does not apply.

I still don't understand how there can be spheros in something that is supposed to be absolutely poshut.

More precisely: Not Sefiros Bepoel, they are Sefiros Bekoach, and Sefiros Ad Ein Sof, and klulos bemekoron, and are only noticeable after the Tzimtzum. Atzmus does not even have this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyingAxe

In particular, I don't grasp the logic of Reb Kaan's analysis of how because the spheroes are undifferentiated and are cause of everything, they are ultimately united, and so they are "one" with each other (but then why are they called spheroes, and why are they in plural, not singluar?).

In other words, it is only Bekoach, and they are called Sefiros al shem ho'osid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyingAxe

I also don't understand Mittler Rebbe's argument of "obviously the ten spheros exist in Ohr Ein Soif, otherwise, where did they [the lower instances of ten spheros] come from?" (I am paraphrasing from Ch-s 10-11 in Mittler Rebbe's Shar HaYichud). What's the problem of saying that they were created ym"a from something completely singular?

They can emerge Yesh Meayin (and do), but they must have a source which is Ayin relative to them - and that is Or Ein Sof.

Remember that the creation of Or Ein Sof from Atzmus is not Yesh Meayin, the example given is of a mirror, a reflection, that contains everything in the mokor. It is Ayin Meayin, or Yesh HoAmiti from Yesh HoAmiti.

Yes, upon reviewing my post today, I do realize that the term "Osios" may not have been the most suited (and thusly incorrect). It seems my knowledge in Chassidus is getting rusty (Although Bittul's last post serves me as a nice refresher), I can understand (and therefore cannot understand what is so cryptic in your eyes about) my post, but I do not see where I implied anything about there being Sefiros in Atzmus (Although I did imply that a Metzius has Osios, which appears to be not necessarily so).